GIBSON v COB SUPPLY COMPANY PTY LTD [2001] NSWSC 168

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : GIBSON v COB SUPPLY COMPANY PTY LTD [2001] NSWSC 168 revised - 23/03/2001 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 17534/81 HEARING DATE(S) : 15 to 19 November 1999 28 February 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 March 2001

PARTIES : Plaintiff: Kerry John GIBSON Defendant: COB Supply Company Pty Ltd JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: In person Defendant: Mr HG Shore SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: In person Defendant: Sparke Helmore DECISION : Orders deferred

- 56 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

NO: 17534/81 Tuesday, 20 March, 2001 HULME J JUDGMENT Kerry John GIBSON v COB SUPPLY COMPANY PTY LTD

HIS HONOUR: Introduction 1 By Statement of Claim filed on 25 November 1981, the Plaintiff instituted proceedings for damages claiming that he had been injured at work due to the negligence or breach of statutory duty of the Defendant who he alleged was his employer at the time. 2 The Defendant's final pleading was a Second Amended Statement of Defence filed on 16 November 1999. As the trial proceeded before me it became apparent that the ultimate issues were negligence, whether the premises were a factory and whether there had been a breach of statutory duty, whether the Plaintiff suffered more than a transient injury, and damages. On the latter topic, there was particular dispute on the question of what, if any, value should be attributed to a claim by the Plaintiff that the injury had precluded him from a career in first grade Rugby League. There was also an allegation of contributory negligence. 3 In December 1992, a trial of the action was held before Newman J. On 7 July 1993, his Honour directed that there be a verdict for the Defendant. 4 On 29 May 1997, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from that decision, ordered that there be a new trial of the proceedings and made other ancillary orders. These Reasons arise from the new trial which was held before me. The Plaintiff was unrepresented and appeared in person and though he performed, for a layman, a reasonable job, the absence of representation was not calculated to improve his chances or make a trial judge's job easier. 5 Among the issues which arose in the proceedings was the extent to which previous decisions provided an estoppel in relation to various aspects of the claim. The Plaintiff took proceedings in the Workers Compensation Commission, receiving an award there from Acting Judge Egan on 2 May 1996. An appeal by the Defendant to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 28 November 1996. Those decisions caused me to limit the evidence which the Plaintiff wished to adduce but at the end of the hearing there still remained some estoppel issues to be decided. However, it will be convenient in the first instance to refer to some of the other evidence before me.